PTAB Explains how to Determine Whether a Reference Qualifies as a “Printed Publication” Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Sep 7, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Apple filed a petition for inter partes review of a patent owned by VirnetX directed to secure methods for communicating over the Internet. Apple alleged that claims of VirnetX’s patent were obvious over a prior art patent in combination with a document identified as RFC 2401. VirnetX disputed whether RFC 2401 qualified as a printed publication as of the date identified on the face of the document and whether it was publicly accessible as of that date.

Apple relied on an expert declaration to explain what an RFC is and why RFCs meet the definition of printed publications. Apple’s expert testified that RFCs are documents that are prepared and distributed by the Internet Engineering Task Force, and each RFC relates to an Internet standards-related specification. Apple’s expert also opined that each RFC contains a date on its cover page that reflects the date that the document was released to the public.

In challenging RFC 2401, VirnetX attempted to analogize the document to a thesis with a date stamped on a cover page and a notation that the thesis was “approved for public release; distribution unlimited.” Prior PTAB decisions had found that, for such a document, absent any further indication that the document was actually released publicly, distributed to the public, or entered into a publicly accessible electronic database, the public accessibility of the document had not been established.

The PTAB credited Apple’s expert’s testimony establishing that RFCs are publicly disseminated and contain publication dates printed on their covers. The PTAB noted that RFC 2401 requested suggestions and improvements for an Internet standards protocol, “precisely the type of document whose very purpose is public disclosure,” and that the document was disseminated to persons of ordinary skill interested in computer networking security, which indicated that the document was “publically accessible.” In view of this evidence, Apple established that RFC 2401 qualified as a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2015-00812, Final Written Decision, Paper No. 43 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016).

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 17,2025

Pre-Suit Willfulness Sufficiently Pleaded Where Detailed Facts Support Defendant’s Involvement in Opposition Proceeding of Related Patent and Participation in Relevant Industry

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

Ninth Circuit: Unlike CUTSA, DTSA Does Not Require a Plaintiff to Identify Their Trade Secrets With Particularity from the Start

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

Federal Circuit Confirms That PTAB Patentability Findings Do Not Have Issue-Preclusive Effect in District Court

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirement for Reference to Qualify as 'By Another' Under Pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e)

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent.

...

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.

PTAB Explains how to Determine Whether a Reference Qualifies as a “Printed Publication” Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries